The city also contends that plaintiff failed to establish that it had acquired
an easement over the PTC land before the city acquired the land. To establish a
prescriptive easement, plaintiff had to prove open, notorious use of the land, adverse to
the rights of PTC, for a continuous and uninterrupted period of ten years. Thompson v.
Scott, 270 Or 542, 546, 528 P2d 509 (1974). In order to satisfy the open and notorious
requirement, the use of the easement must have been such that PTC had a reasonable
opportunity to learn of its existence and nature. Baylink v. Rees, 159 Or App 310, 317,
977 P2d 1180 (1999) (citing Thompson v. Schuh, 286 Or 201, 211, 593 P2d 1138 (1979)).
Plaintiff used PTC's land as a major access point to its business during normal business
hours; it paved and striped the land in 1972. Plaintiff's use of the land was clearly visible.
Based on that evidence, we conclude that plaintiff established that it made open and
notorious use of the easement.

Plaintiff's use must also have been adverse to the rights of the owner. At all
times, plaintiff used the PTC land for its own purpose, with no benefit to PTC. Open use
for a period of ten years creates a presumption that the use is adverse to the owner's
rights. Feldman v. Knapp, 196 Or 453, 470-72, 250 P2d 92 (1952). To rebut the
presumption, there must be a showing that the use was permissive or a showing that the
party asserting the easement used an existing road in a way that did not interfere with the
owner's use. Beebe v. DeMarco, 157 Or App 176, 180-81, 968 P2d 396 (1998), rev den
328 Or 293 (1999). Defendant argues that plaintiff's use was permissive, because the
entire railroad area was open to the public. The railroad area, in particular the northern
track, was open to PTC's customers to load and unload freight from parked boxcars, and
members of the public occasionally used the area to walk or bicycle. However, PTC did
not give or imply permission for plaintiff to use the property as part of a private driveway
for its business. Defendant has not rebutted the presumption that plaintiff's use was
adverse.

1. Our resolution of that issue implies nothing about plaintiff's right of access
to the road and the effect of its failure to obtain the required permits before the city
acquired the PTC land and removed the driveway.